¶ 159 When we say that a source is authentic or genuine,
we mean that it has the origin which it pretends to have, that it has for its
author the person under whose name it appears and to whom it is commonly the
person whose name it appears and to whom it is commonly ascribed. If it be
anonymous, it is at least the work of some unknown author of the period to
which it is generally assigned. Hence, criticism of the authenticity of a
source has for its object to determine whether or not the reputed origin of the
document is the realm origin. If the reputed origin is the real origin, the
source is genuine, or authentic; otherwise, the source is spurious, or false
(apocryphal, counterfeit, positious). Sources, the authenticity of which is
vouched for on probable grounds only, may be described as doubtful.
The Genuine and the
False: Forgery
(a) The term authenticity is too often used to
express two ideas: genuineness and credibility. The usage is deplorable, for it
is misleading. Here authenticity will be employed to express solely the
idea of genuineness, no account at all being taken of the question whether the
source is trustworthy or not; such question has place only in the specific
problem of credibility. While it may be conceded that a spurious source is
also, as a rule, untrustworthy, the fact remains that the truth or falsity of
the content of a source is no decisive criterion for determining its
authenticity; a demonstrably spurious source can still be reliable throughout.
A, writing from firsthand information on current events, may turn out an
accurate and trushworthy account of them, though the account may go before the
public under the name of B, with a view to securing greater authority
for it. B is generally but mistakenly credited with having written the
book, which thereby must be described as not authentic but spurious, inasmuch
as the reputed author is not the real author.
(b) The assignment of a source to the wrong author may be
due to conscious fraud or unconscious error. In either case the falsification
may be complete or partial, according as it extends to the entire source or
only to a part of it. Partial falsification takes such forms as outright
fabrication of one or more passages, serious garbling of a genuine passage,
omission of parts of the original text. Omissions are not always to be referred
to an intention to deceive. Conscientious copyists of manuscripts have often
been puzzled by illegible words, especially proper names and foreign terms,
with resulting omission. Had these copyists been conversant with the modern
practice, they would have noted the omission in their transcripts by some
conventional device or symbol. (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical
Method, ed. Jean Delanglez [New York: Fordham University Press, 1946], 169-70)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com